Ukkesh
[13] Hero
Sad to say, nothing much so far AFAIK. A couple tournaments, I suppose. That and a world tour? My short-term memory is pretty chronic so don't quote me.
Soul Calibur VI: General discussion
- Thread starter SSfox
- Start date
Crash X
[14] Master
Just a hotfix to the tracking on Azwel’s 44B and some bug fixes to Cassandra.
Other than that, nothing really.
I_Love_Aogami
[12] Conqueror
Speaking of which what are people's guesses when we will hear anything about the second season pass?
AriesWarlock
[12] Conqueror
i figured it was a guide and a bit of artwork. Do you have those illustrations? I don't know Japanese, so browsing the site is difficult.
FluffyQuack
[14] Master
バンダイナムコエンターテインメント公式サイト
バンダイナムコエンターテインメントの公式サイトです。スマートフォン向けゲームアプリや家庭用ゲーム、ライブ、イベントなど、多彩なエンターテインメントをお届けしています。
They're not full-body versions of the illustrations, unfortunately, but I think that's higher quality than what you see in the guide.
Autumn
[13] Hero
There's also the Soul Edge official fan book, which is where the character pages like this one came from, although I'm not sure if there's any concept art in it. I recently bought a copy and it should arrive some time in October, so I'll let you know if there's anything interesting in it.
FluffyQuack
[14] Master
Here is some other Legends stuffs: https://mega.nz/#!FFNH2CKB!0iIwerq5JpEAxM10pAZBAB-bDPCsq05pDFIGUGuEzXU
Spanky
[13] Hero
Thank you folks for sharing the links!!! I love SC art.
Hot question: do we have a thread for official artwork n related images like what's been popping up in this thread lately? I guess for the sake of archiving it efficiently so people don't have to go digging through our 1000+ pages here... ;)
Hot question: do we have a thread for official artwork n related images like what's been popping up in this thread lately? I guess for the sake of archiving it efficiently so people don't have to go digging through our 1000+ pages here... ;)
sytus
[14] Master
Thanks for these. Here are all the images including converted PSD files. I had to reduce the quality of the two ninjya images by 1% just so I could upload them here, I'm sure most of you here won't miss a pixel
artard4321
[12] Conqueror
The Nintendo platform honestly deserved better than the hack job that is SoulCalibur Legends. SoulCalibur II is considered to be one of the best selling and top-rated games in the GameCube; and Namco somehow, for whatever reason, failed to follow up on its success by delivering a proper sequel in the Nintendo platform.
The hardware found in the GameCube is as powerful as the PlayStation 2 and the GameCube version outsold its counterparts. It's a mystery why Namco didn't follow up with it by making SoulCalibur III multi-platform. Now, the time has passed and the opportunities are missed.
If Bandai Namco ever brings a proper SoulCalibur fighting game to the Nintendo Switch then I'm pretty sure that it would at least be more successful than SoulCalibur: Broken Destiny was. Slap in Link at the front cover and they have themselves another top-selling game in the top-selling platform.
The hardware found in the GameCube is as powerful as the PlayStation 2 and the GameCube version outsold its counterparts. It's a mystery why Namco didn't follow up with it by making SoulCalibur III multi-platform. Now, the time has passed and the opportunities are missed.
If Bandai Namco ever brings a proper SoulCalibur fighting game to the Nintendo Switch then I'm pretty sure that it would at least be more successful than SoulCalibur: Broken Destiny was. Slap in Link at the front cover and they have themselves another top-selling game in the top-selling platform.
sytus
[14] Master
@FluffyQuack
Regarding Soul Calibur Legends would you be a kind gentleman and dump the in game art assets if possible? As someone who (unfortunately) played through Legends there's artwork, specifically the portrait artwork that hasn't been archived anywhere on the internet.
Regarding Soul Calibur Legends would you be a kind gentleman and dump the in game art assets if possible? As someone who (unfortunately) played through Legends there's artwork, specifically the portrait artwork that hasn't been archived anywhere on the internet.
LisaK
[14] Master
If Okubo don't release any news during the SC World Invitation (November 2), so the end of January when EVO 2020 starts, maybe we receive the news about SP2 :/
Last edited:
LisaK
[14] Master
We just needs to be patience...
sytus
[14] Master
Crash X
[14] Master
I’m hoping this means he wants to deliver as much as he can for Season 2 when he’s ready to reveal it. If so, all hail Okubo.
Project Bokuho
[14] Master
Soon.
Rusted Blade
[14] Master
Hard to know where to start with this: most of the facts you assume here are wrong, and thus your conclusions are not sound.
No it wasn't: it's GPU and CPU were (famously) less than half as powerful as the other two major console competitors at the time (PS2 and original XBOX), it had far less working memory capacity, and it was not optimized to render the kind of 3D graphics that a game like Soulcalibur requires. There is a noticeably lower graphical fidelity on the Gamecube version, and more performance issues. The Gamecube version was successful (for a Gamecube title) despite these deficiencies, but mostly because it was a popular launch game that had the benefit of being the first fighter to ever feature Link.
Even then, we don't know that the Gamecube version outsold the PS2 version, and it is unlikely that it did: as far as I can tell that is (like a hundred thousand other "facts" that get shared here and then repeated without scrutiny, both here and in the online SC community in general) just an assertion that someone made at some point: looking at the actual reported sales figures, all we can say with certainty is that there were about 3 million sales of the game (prior to SCII:HDO) and about a million of those were on the Gamecube. That means if the sales were evenly split between the other two consoles, all three platforms sold about a million copies apiece. But probably, like most other games for that generation, the PS2 version significantly outsold the XBOX version (and thus also the Gamecube version). That's only indirectly germane to the analysis of the larger questions here, but it's still a community myth worth correcting.
Regardless, contrasting the circumstances at that time to the marketing and development factors that face a dev today leads to a number of false comparisons. Contrary to your assertion that the Switch is the "top-selling console" of it's generation, it is actually in dead-last place among the top 3 of this generation: the XBOX One has sold about 20% more units and the PS4 has sold about 250% as many! Furthermore, the development costs for porting SCVI (a game which already seriously struggles in terms of performance on two platforms with significantly more powerful hardware) would be significant. There have been numerous discussions of the idea on this very thread, so I won't belabour that topic again and grow this post by another seven paragraphs, but if you are interested in the topic, look for a discussion between myself and FluffyQuack about four months back where we pull apart the technical feasability and I also discuss some of the factors on the business side of things.
However, it is worth noting that you did say a Soulcalibur game, and did not specify SCVI--but while porting an older game to the Switch might be more technically feasible, it would be a dubious business decision, as I doubt there is an older Soulcalibur game capable of generating enough demand to make the cost of the process of the porting financially viable, especially when it has to compete against numerous Namco properties that are already desperate for development attention: even the most recent full game in the franchise (SCVI) was half-outsourced to an outside studio, and we're all more than familiar here with the snail's pace at which continuing content for the game is being generated on even the two major consoles, even though the DLC is more profitable (relative to development costs). Nor is it likely the present-day Nintendo would be interested in boot-strapping such a game (SCVI or otherwise) with the license of a character like Link. For that matter, it seems that Namco itself (like many devs) is no longer interested in doing console-specific content releases. Further, the install-base for fans of major 3D fighters is not as large (as a proportional matter) on the Switch as it was on the Gamecube, relative to the other consoles of the generation of each, while development costs (even for a port) are significantly higher today.
I'm afraid the numbers just are not there (in pretty much every respect you can examine) for a Switch Soulcalibur game. It's easy to say that "WTF are Namco doing not seizing this opportunity" but any detailed look at the technical and sales limitations and the companies own divided resources and priorities makes it clear why it is not just a smart decision not to develop a fighter for that platform, but indeed, why it would be extremely foolish. But of course people like to second-guess companies (and their product management and market research teams with their hundreds of highly-educated and experienced professionals wielding massive budgets in the tens of millions of dollars, all dedicated towards making the right call on such matters). But I assure you, these decisions are not made in a trivial manner. The Switch is just not the platform for a triple-A 3D fighter, either as a technical or market share matter. Perhaps Nintendo's next console will be better positioned to be a better platform for such games in the coming generation: it's really hard to say, but that's an entirely separate analysis which would take at least a couple more paragraphs to summarize, so I'll leave that for any follow-up discussion. Suffice it to say, though: I'd be gobsmacked to hear that a Soulcalibur game was dropping on the Switch, and if it did, I would assume it to be another non-fighter off-shoot like Legends, which I assume is not what you were talking about or hoping for here.
Last edited:
artard4321
[12] Conqueror
I'm not gonna bother reading through an essay that TLDR says I'm speaking bullshit.
Graphs: Soulcalibur II Sales - IGN
Blame Nintendo's decision to make a controller with less buttons than the competition's. Blame it on less third-party support for GameCube than for PlayStation 2 or Xbox. Or don't. But for one reason or another Nintendo waged an uphill battle in 2002 and 2003 as it attempted to draw...
- SoulCalibur II for the GameCube sold more that the PlayStation 2 and Xbox model, granted not both combined. PlayStation 2 should have also had an advantage here since it sold more consoles that the GameCube but it still lost in sales.
- In terms of hardware, if you do the research, the strongest console is the Xbox then the GameCube then the PlayStation 2. PlayStation 2 just happens to be the most popular platform so most developers made games for it. If the PlayStation 2 can handle running it, then the GameCube can as well.
- And if you actually do keep up with video game news and publications, the Nintendo Switch is breaking records as the fastest selling console. Granted it released much later than the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One so it may not have outsold them yet but it's on pace to outselling them.
- Nintendo Switch should be capable of handling a different version of SoulCalibur VI like how Broken Destiny was to IV but on the PSP. If anything, it should be able to handle SoulCalibur VI proper since it is developed under Unreal Engine 4 and there are other fighting games within the same engine that is featured in that platform.
So yeah, I had my facts checked. If anything, I actually have some educational background in software engineering and game development so I do have some understanding of how development process works or at least how it should work. I have no business background so I can't say for sure but I stand on my case with the facts I checked.
Not gonna lie, I can see why some members here don't get along with you. You can't just go around telling someone they're speaking BS and then write an incredibly long essay about why they're wrong... wtf man.
EDIT: Also I can't believe I have to make a post that's almost like an essay just to cite my sources for you to understand. Here is one of the articles that I've previously read before that also claims that the GameCube is stringer than the PlayStation 2.
Xbox Vs. GameCube Vs. PlayStation 2
Torture-testing all the video game consoles-in one room, at one time.
Last edited:
Rusted Blade
[14] Master
First, the source you provide there is over 15 years old, and towards the beginning of the sales life of the game. The numbers I was referencing were more up to date and place the number at 3 million total, with a separate source quoting 1 million in sales for the Gamecube, when all was said and done. That means that the XBOX and PS2 sold 2 million between them. Considering that there were close to ten PS2s in existence for every XBOX by the end of that console generation, its clearly unlikely that as many copies were sold for the XBOX as were sold for the PS2. So no, the game almost certainly performed better (in the sales sense) on the PS2.
Which is of course partly due to the number of PS2s in existence at the time, as you noted yourself (and which I noted in my original post). But that's also precisely consistent with my point: a developer marketing a game for a given platform needs to be able to ship a certain amount of units of that game. Furthermore, the costs of production (even for ports) are much higher today than they were in the sixth console generation, while the relative install base on such games on the Switch is relatively small it just does not make sense to port a Soulclibur game to Switch in today's market as it did in the market of 2002-2003.
Well, I will credit your second source there on one point: the Gamecube does in fact have a slightly stronger graphics processor than the original PS2, a fact I had forgotten. However, it also had significantly less RAM and its board was so small it was not scaleable over the lifetime of the product (basically, the machine you bought in 2007 was almost identical to the one you got in 2001, whereas the XBOX went through three separate "below the hood" upgrades in its time and the Ps2 had seven). There was a reason that the Gamecube retailed for half the price of the other two consoles (and yet also failed to reach nearly the same degree of success).
Fastest selling ≠ "best selling". I was correcting only your explicit assertion that the Switch is the "best selling" console of this generation. It's not. It wasn't even the best selling console of last year, which was its best year yet. This is relevant because you suggest that this port you are imagining would be "the best selling game of the best selling console". And I'm saying, not only would such a game sell extremely poorly on the Switch (relative to the other two consoles and relative to what Namco would need to justify such a port) but the console you labelled "best selling" is actually dead last among the current generation of machines.
The Switch has sold not quite 38 million units. The PS4 has sold well over 100 million. The Switch has maybe two and a half years of real sales life left in it, and it's not selling 64 million units in that time, I can guarantee you! It could theoretically overtake the XBOX ONE, but even that console retains a 5 million unit lead at present.
Sure, it's technically possible to create a highly down-resed version of the game. Again, if you're interested in the technical side of that, you should look for the previous discussion about it. But (without replicating all of that previous discussion here) there's a number of factors which point towards this being an absolute shit product. For one thing, I don't think you're appreciating a vital advantage that Broken Destiny had over your theoretical port: it was made for a 2 inch screen: this means the graphical demands of Broken Destiny relative to SCIV were tiny, because the game only had to look crisp at a tiny resolution. Your theoretical Switch port of SCVI would need to work on the same resolution as it does on PS4/XBOX ONE (that is, on screens anywhere from 12 inches to 80 inches), despite having significantly weaker hardware. On top of that, the game already has blurry textures on the console versions, as well as substantial performance issues. Now imagine it on a machine with half the processing power and memory.
But yeah, technically, it is theoretically possible to port the game to the Switch. That's been my conclusion all along. It would look and run like shit, but it's possible. But Namco is not about to expend a huge amount of money to make a highly inferior version of a game which is already well past its best sales days, for a console which has a far smaller absolute install base and a lower proportion of players interested in the product. As I said, the numbers are just not there, coming at it from either a technical or marketplace perspective.
The fact that Unreal Engine runs on all three platforms is really a pretty small factor here. Of course it would simplify the process of the port significantly, cutting costs in that respect, but it won't magically make the hardware capabilities of the new machine strong enough to meet the graphical demands of the game..
Yes--other games, with other requirements. Not this game, which already struggles on hardware more than twice as powerful as the Switch. There's a reason why almost all of the (very few) current-gen fighters released on the Switch are 2D.
Homes, you are taking this way, way too seriously/personally. No one said you were full of shit, or even anything remotely like that. I said a number of the predicates to your argument were factually in error, and that your conclusions suffered as a result. In my opinion, that's a pretty polite way of saying that you've reached a conclusion that is unlikely to bear out. If my phrasing was received as curt, that was not the intention: no offense was (or is) intended with regard to any point I have disagreed about. As to the size of the post, I'm sorry, but it often takes substantially longer to discuss why an idea is a bad one than it does to just throw that same idea out there in a "Why aren't they doing this!?" fashion.
But yes, at the end of the day I certainly can spend my time correcting inaccurate assertions if I chose to, and I won't feel particularly uncharitable, unkind, or unfair in doing so here, even if I take some time to explain why the assertion is incorrect or the prediction unlikely. But again, there's nothing personal in it: I'm just coming at the matter from an analytical perspective. If there's any interest we ought to be concerned with as a community collectively, it's having realistic expectations about what we might get from Namco, which in turn requires a understanding of what a company in its position realstically can and cannot do as a producer of content in the present-day industry/market.
Last edited: